uv_select_island

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'select', but does not explain side effects such as whether previous selections are cleared, whether it operates in edit mode, or whether it validates the index. It also does not disclose any required object state (e.g., having a UV map). This is a significant gap for a tool that mutates selection state.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action, but it is almost too skeletal. The Args section is a clean list, yet it duplicates schema information. There is no wasted verbiage, but the extreme brevity leaves the tool under-specified. This is not ideal conciseness; it is underspecification.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description is still incomplete. It omits crucial context: it does not state that the object must have a UV map, does not explain how to determine island indices (e.g., via get_uv_info), and does not describe the expected effect on the selection state. With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much to inference for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description merely restates the parameter names with minimal elaboration: 'object_name: Target object.' and 'island_index: Island index to select.' This adds little beyond the schema titles. It does not explain the indexing scheme (zero-based? contiguous?), how to obtain valid indices, or the meaning of the default value for island_index. The description fails to compensate for the sparse schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action ('Select a UV island by index') with a clear resource (UV island) and method (by index). This verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling UV tools like uv_unwrap, uv_pack_islands, and uv_project_from_view, which perform different operations. It goes beyond a tautology by adding the selection mechanism.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., object must have a UV map, mode requirements) or suggest using get_uv_info to discover island indices. The agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the name alone, which is insufficient for a complex UV workflow.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.